Many moons ago, I started up a blog called Crap Holyrood Chat, a half serious and half fun look at the motions that were lodged at the Scottish Parliament with a view to pulling out the ones that were a blatant waste of time either due to sycophancy, idiocy or just general crapness.
The venture ultimately failed because I only rarely found myself scrolling through the hundreds of important motions that make it onto the Scottish Parliament website each week but, now, with a team of four, the other three of which being much closer both geographically and, em, mentally(?) to Holyrood than I am, we think it might be time to start something similar up again.
So, without further ado, I am pleased to announce Better Nation’s weekly feature – worst motion of the week!
By all means feel free to forward suggestions (editors@betternation.org) but we have a doozy to kick things off. Take a bow, John Mason:
The Equal Marriage Debate
That the Parliament notes the current discussion about same-sex marriages and the Scottish Government’s forthcoming public consultation concerning equal marriage; further notes that, while some in society approve of same-sex sexual relationships, others do not agree with them; desires that Scotland should be a pluralistic society where all minorities can live together in peace and mutual tolerance; believes that free speech is a fundamental right and that even when there is disagreement with another person’s views, that person has the right to express these views, and considers that no person or organisation should be forced to be involved in or to approve of same-sex marriages.
Supported by: Bill Walker, Dennis Robertson, Gil Paterson, Richard Lyle, Mike MacKenzie
Now, I don’t know what is more surprising in the above, that John Mason believes that people may be forced to approve of anything or that five MSPs (all SNP) felt the need to support this.
There is a valid question to be asked here – should, for example, a Catholic priest be forced by law into marrying two people of the same sex? My answer to that would be no but, nonetheless, there is no absolution from me for the sheer cack-handed and completely unnecessary motion pasted in full above.
Congratulations John Mason, the first of many I am sure to win the award of Better Nation’s Worst Motion of the Week.
#1 by James on August 4, 2011 - 2:00 pm
Patrick Harvie has an amendment as follows.
Delete from “desires” and insert:
“notes that the balance between these views has changed substantially over recent decades, with the 2006 Scottish Social Attitudes Survey showing 53% in agreement with equal marriage and only 21% in disagreement, and a poll in 2010 showing 58% support with only 19% against; congratulates the Scottish Youth Parliament on the launch of its Love Equally campaign for equal marriage and civil partnership, a campaign it voted to select after consulting with over 42,000 young people across Scotland; believes that the Scottish Government is recognising this shift in public attitudes with its forthcoming consultation on equal marriage; recognises that allowing same sex marriage and mixed sex civil partnerships would in no way undermine the rights and freedoms of whose who do not wish to participate in them; and further believes it would be both right and popular for secular and religious Scots alike to be free to reach their own view on the legal status that is right for their own relationship, instead of being banned by law from having their relationships recognised on equal terms.”
#2 by Doug Daniel on August 4, 2011 - 2:03 pm
Oh dear. I live in hope that one day society will be free of religion. All it does is hold people back and give them excuses to harbour ridiculous old-fashioned ideas.
#3 by Indy on August 4, 2011 - 2:05 pm
I think ‘Delete All” would have been better.
#4 by Shave on August 4, 2011 - 2:12 pm
No person or organisation should be forced to be involved in or to approve of John Mason’s icky ‘breeder’ marriage.
#5 by Dani on August 4, 2011 - 2:22 pm
The Scottish Youth Parliament are currently campaigning on this issue, backed up by Patrick Harvie, Marco Biagi and others. It’s great that Patrick mentioned the campaign in his amendment.
#6 by Douglas McLellan on August 4, 2011 - 2:36 pm
An argument just put forward by @KristoferKeane on twitter does raise the interesting point that, using the same logic as these SNP MSPs, it can be argued that since not everyone in Scotland supports independence the SNP should not support it.
#7 by Chris on August 4, 2011 - 2:42 pm
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.
#8 by Gary Cocker on August 4, 2011 - 2:51 pm
My main hope for the fallout from this is that there’s a good bit of internal debate and disagreement amongst SNP MSPs. I’m sure I’m not alone in getting a bit concerned at the Stepford Wives-like air of harmony and uniformity amongst the ranks on, well, everything. I understand that whips have a job to do and that at the end of the day what unites us as a Party is stronger than what divides us but the risk of debate becoming sterile seemed (before today!) to be running a little too high for my liking.
Oh, and it’s a motion well deserving of that award.
#9 by Dr William Reynolds on August 4, 2011 - 3:04 pm
Jeff,I am sad to say that your treatment of John Mason is cheap.Leaving politics aside,John Masons election was one of the most pleasing results for me in May.He is a very decent and caring man who does not discriminate against anyone on grounds of politics,sexuality,gender,race etc.He refused to stand on the Glasgow list because he wanted to work for all of the constituents of Shettleston.He makes his home address and phone number available to everyone.
If the basis of your argument is that there is no point to his motion,I disagree.John is not homophobic but he recognises that many peoplke are,and that they have a different view about gay marriages.It is not the case that he is is suggesting that people will be forced to accept gay marriages,but he is warning us about that possibility.In that respect he is arguing for a tolerant and peaceful society.In that respect we should all support him,irrespective of our politics.
#10 by Jeff on August 4, 2011 - 3:28 pm
William,
First of all, I would join you in warning against people concluding that John Mason is homophobic. I certainly don’t think that (and we’ll be trashing any comments that fall short in that regard).
You seem to be confusing this post with a profile of John Mason as a politician at large. I don’t disagree that he is a decent, caring man who works very hard in his job. That doesn’t take away from the fact that this motion is clumsy at best and a howler at worst.
The basis of my argument is not so much that there is “no point” to this motion but rather that the language is so muddled that is not clear what the point is, particularly the line: “no person or organisation should be forced to be involved in or to approve of same-sex marriages.”
An issue as important as equal rights shouldn’t have such a messy motion attached to it.
My overriding point though is this – do the many motions out there such as this one really deliver any value to Scotland? Are they really worth all the time and effort?
#11 by Jeff on August 4, 2011 - 3:47 pm
PS You’re right that it’s a bit cheap in one way. I did used to purposefully add a certain trashiness to my Crap Holyrood Chat posts, and I for one think that is well worth continuing. To remind folks that it’s just a bit of fun really…
#12 by Douglas McLellan on August 4, 2011 - 3:54 pm
The basic subtext of this motion is against something the nobody is advocating (that religious bodies should be forced to perform same sex marriages). Where has this been asked for? Who actually wants to enact this into law?
Each religion has, and always will, have its autonomy regarding same sex marriages. John Mason is a clever man so he must know this. What has driven him to write this motion in this way? A fear for the independence of religion even when that independence is not under threat in anyway? That would mean he was suffering from a remarkably high level of ignorance. If he isnt then we have an early contender for worst motion of the #sp4 session already.
On Jeffs wider point about the value of motions – I would say that most are of no real value to Scotland. They are good for local press releases, the highlighting of local campaigns etc. Basically showing the MSP in a good light.
But there are a few that can help direct the policy of the government of the day and give a voice to parliament on some very important issues.
#13 by Una on August 4, 2011 - 5:11 pm
At the risk of having my comment trashed, I find it very difficult not to see this as homophobia masquerading as a call for ‘freedom of speech’.
While the motion does not say that he personally is against ‘same-sex sexual relationships’, he clearly felt the need to protect the right to be against them (a right which is not under threat, judging from my experience over the years!). In other words, protecting the right to be homophobic. A strange issue over which to champion freedom of speech!
Had the motion been about protecting the right to speak out against black people, would it have been acceptable for someone representing the SNP to say this?
Those who are against gay marriage are not affected by the proposals at all – it only impacts on those couples who want to get married, or those who are happy to perform the ceremonies.
So catholic priests or any other denomination are free to say no.
But others like humanists who currently can perform civil marriage but are legally prevented from performing civil partnerships – are allowed to do so.
#14 by Jeff on August 4, 2011 - 5:23 pm
Far too intelligent a comment to trash Una, I don’t see us having to reach for our (non-existent) lawyers there. And, while I don’t know what is being proposed by the SG on same-sex marriages, I think you’re spot on.
#15 by Indy on August 4, 2011 - 3:33 pm
I like John Mason, I have known him for years and I worked my backside off to get him elected in Glasgow East.
But John has a complete blind spot about this issue.
There is absolutely no logic behind what he is saying, as everybody agrees that religious bodies should not be forced to perform marriage services for people they don’t want to marry.
But changing the law will allow denominations who do want to marry same sex couples to do so and get rid of an institutionalised piece of discrimination which does not belong in the modern world.
#16 by Gary Cocker on August 4, 2011 - 3:06 pm
(Though I now notice that many SNP MSPs and others have signed Harvie’s amendment so fair play!)
#17 by Dr William Reynolds on August 4, 2011 - 3:23 pm
Douglas I dont follow your logic/rationale.Saying that we should not discriminate against views that are different fro our own,does not mean that we cannot agree to disagree.Thus,I can be comfortable with the fact that some people do not support independence,but that does not mean that I ,or the SNP should not support it.I respect unionist views,I just don’t agree with them.I would have thought that a Liberal would understand the argument that we should all have the freedom to express our views without any pressure to conform from a central power (eg government ,media).
#18 by Douglas McLellan on August 4, 2011 - 4:13 pm
I have no problem with people expressing their views. The problem starts when someone starts down the road of foisting their views on other people.
#19 by Alec Macph on August 5, 2011 - 11:50 am
>> Thus,I can be comfortable with the fact that some people do not support independence,but that does not mean that I ,or the SNP should not support it.
Psalm 116:11.
~alec
#20 by Richard on August 4, 2011 - 3:25 pm
Motions is quite an apt word, really 🙂
#21 by Gary Cocker on August 4, 2011 - 3:31 pm
Jeff beat me to it. Although I’ve never met John, from what I gather he is a decent honourable man who doesn’t hold any prejudices himself; however, politics is a contact sport and being a good man as John is does not preclude him from criticism for a poorly worded motion.
#22 by Dr William Reynolds on August 4, 2011 - 4:25 pm
Okay Jeff,I get your point now,but you didn’t make that clear initially.
I hav e heard worst from some of our Hollyrood MSP’s
#23 by Jeff on August 4, 2011 - 5:02 pm
Hmm, ok. You do seem to be the only one that had any problems with this so I’m going to assume that it was clear enough.
#24 by Jeff - Dundee on August 4, 2011 - 5:07 pm
http://www.facebook.com/groups/216149508432987/
#25 by Jeff - Dundee on August 4, 2011 - 5:09 pm
I agree Douglas McKellan – the church and its followers have no right to hoist there intolerant, dark ages views on the rest of society- EQUALITY means EQUAL – not for some but for all citizens in society.
Not the one’s the church and its followers deem worthy or not!
#26 by Ross on August 4, 2011 - 5:44 pm
John Mason MSP has got it badly wrong.
Supporters of marriage equality are not in favour of “forcing†religious organisations into accepting same sex marriage. We simply believe that religious organisations should have the right to make that decision for themselves. What’s the problem with that? Surely that is just common sense.
It is a different story however when it comes to officials working for the General Register Office for Scotland . Registrars are representatives of the state and therefore have a duty to provide an equal service for all citizens regardless of their own personal prejudices or opinions.
Would Mr Mason support the right of a registrar refusing to officiate over the marriage of a mixed race couple because it didn’t tie in with their personal beliefs? Of course not. So why the double standard? Why are bigoted views considered more acceptable because the holder of them happens to adhere to a particular religion?
#27 by Alec Macph on August 5, 2011 - 11:53 am
>> It is a different story however when it comes to officials working for the General Register Office for Scotland . Registrars are representatives of the state and therefore have a duty to provide an equal service for all citizens regardless of their own personal prejudices or opinions.
This, I feel, _is_ his point. It’s a commonly heard argument, and immediately refutably. Registrars – even those who joined before civil partnership legislation was passed – are there to marry two eligble individuals.
The law and society has decided this can apply to same-sex couples. Tough luck.
#28 by Ezio on August 4, 2011 - 7:13 pm
I’m delighted at the quality of the comments here, kudos to all involved!
Could someone, Indy perhaps, tell me exactly what the SNP are proposing and when we can expect to see it come into law?
Speaking as someone who is desperate to marry the man he loves, I can only hope I will finally be granted this right asap. The idea that it needs the ‘approval’ of John Mason is close to being an insult (and I say that as someone who has voted for John personally in the past).
#29 by Observer on August 4, 2011 - 8:04 pm
There will be a consultation and then legislation I presume.
Can only assume John is trying to pre-emopt this and frame the debate in a way that certain Christians want it to be framed i.e. as a threat to them.
Not a good tactic as all he has succeeded in doing is pissing everyone off.
#30 by Jeff - Dundee on August 4, 2011 - 7:30 pm
Pete Wishart via Twitter a few mins ago
John Mason’s nasty little anti gay marriage motion is just wrong, and really dissapointed that other colleagues have signed it.
#31 by Dr William Reynolds on August 4, 2011 - 8:09 pm
Ezio,having read the motion several times,I do not conclude that John Mason is asking that you seek his approval,or that he is foisting his views on others.quite the opposite actually.i concluded that he was advocating for free speech as a fundemental right,and arguing that people should not be forced to comply with acts that are not compatble with their beliefs.
The question about whether this motion,and many othere are necessary,merits much more detailed analysis than was provided by Jeff .The question is legitimate but it was not dealt with adequately by Jeff. Jeff’s reply to my response was that he was not so much saying that there was no point to the motion,but that it was so badly written,that the point was lost.Actually I did understand the point but agree that the motion was badly written.It is comprised of one long sentence of 105 words.It contains so many foci that it is very difficult to read.A sentence,like a paragraph should contain one idea,then you construct a new sentence.Generally if a sentence exceeds 30 words it is likely to be very difficult to digest.I think that has contributed to a lot of misunderstanding about what John Mason meant.
I understand the point made by Ross.However the problem with moral reasoning is that there are no right or wrong answers.What one person considers to be bigoted,another considers to be morally right.Personally I have no problem with gay marraiges or gay people adopting children.However,some people do.My conclusion was not that John Mason was saying that gay marraiges were wrong,only that people should not be forced by law to act against their personal values.While I would be comfortable with gay marraiges being legal in Scotland (as they are in Holland) we do need to ensure that we do not increase bigotry by corecian of people who have different views.
This is a tricky area,like all other moral dilemmas.Often there are no obvious right answers,only personal feelings and a range of views about the way to go.I think that the very least that Jeff can do is to invite John Mason to explain the rationale for his motion.It will settle nothing but it would at least inform us.
#32 by Indy on August 4, 2011 - 10:05 pm
I am sorry but how can this be seen as a moral dilemma?
At present religious denominations which wish to marry same sex couples are prevented from doing that by law. How can that possibly be justified?
There is no question of religious denominations who do not wish to marry same sex couples being forced to. So it is not the case that John is simply seeking assurances. Those assurances have already been given.
In any case if John or anybody else has concerns about that, the place to raise those concerns is during the consultation process which will commence shortly.
I am afraid I can see no reason for the lodging of this motion other than the reason that Observer has suggested.
#33 by Gryff on August 5, 2011 - 8:41 am
Exactly this, I’m fed up of is being framed as the big bad Churches not wanting to be forced to marry same sex couples.
For me this is about Government telling religious and other, organisations who they can and can’t marry, which, excepting a few base lines about competence, bigamy and incest, it should have no business doing.
Each religious organisation should be free to set its own regulations as to who their representatives can and cannot marry. The government shoudl no more stop them from marrying a gay couple than it shoudl force them too.
#34 by John Lind on August 4, 2011 - 8:19 pm
I think the problem is largely the wording of the motion.
I certaintly don’t think John Mason is homophobic and I’m disappointed in the folk who have been bombarding his facebook page.
I don’t agree with his motion and don’t think it’s neccessary as I would doubt that a gay couple would want to get married by someone whom is against gay marriage. However, John is not trying to stop gay marriage with his motion, he is looking for assurances that organisations or individuals, who don’t wish to marry two people of the same sex, are not legally obliged to perform such a ceremony.
I hope the motion fails. However, it has to be said that the reaction from certain individuals is way over the top.
#35 by Stephen on August 4, 2011 - 8:20 pm
Thanks to Una for the link here.
I would argue that this motion isn’t homophobic as it doesn’t really mean anything at all! If you strip the motion down to its two most contentious clauses:
“further notes that, while some in society approve of same-sex sexual relationships, others do not agree with them”
This is simply a statement of fact.
“considers that no person or organisation should be forced to be involved in or to approve of same-sex marriages.”
Nobody can be forced to take part in a marriage. Nobody can be forced to approve of anything.
Taking up Una’s challenge, if we replace the subject of this motion with mixed-race marriage (for want of a better term). It would be just as valid to say that there are people in Scotland who do not approve. Again nobody can be forced to take part, and again nobody can have approval forced upon them.
Perhaps where Una and I disagree is on the definition of homophobia.
I believe that people have the right to be prejudiced in their thoughts, but not in their actions. Although it is not to be encouraged, anything else is surely ‘thought crime’. Where people act on their prejudices, they often violate the law and are subject to a penalty.
You may not care to listen to, or vote for, someone who gives voice to their prejudices but they have the right to voice them nonetheless.
#36 by Jeff on August 4, 2011 - 9:06 pm
I like to think that a lot of what you say is what John was (clumsily) getting at Stephen and it is a shame if people do automatically think the worst of folk (which seems to happen out there in all manner of ways).
People do have a right to not like the introduction or the removal of barriers to same-sex marriage; and of course people have a right to not like that people don’t like the changes in the law being brought in. I guess the ultimate aim is to reach a tolerant level of intolerance on either side. That said, banning same-sex marriage is surely indefensible, even if I recognise a person’s right to vote against it, even if that person happens to be a politician.
#37 by Una on August 4, 2011 - 10:29 pm
I certainly don’t think the worst of John Mason – I actually think he’s a decent enough bloke (if only he’d loosen up a little ;)). We’re all chock full of prejudices, and I admire people who say the same in public as they do in private.
I also don’t wish to impose acceptance on those who wish to continue to disapprove of homosexuals, although I would certainly define that as homophobia, whether violence is involved or not!
As long as they aren’t allowed to impose their prejudices through discriminatory legislation.
So John Mason has a right to champion whatever (homophobic) views he wants as an individual. The question arises when you also represent a collective, like a political party. There are certain lines regarding equality that really ought not to be crossed, on grounds of decency, mutual respect etc! If you support continued gay inequality under the law, then perhaps you should do the honourable thing and stand for the christian alliance or something.
That said, I’m glad to report I received an email response from John Mason and he clarified that he is “relaxed” about gay marriage, as long as it isn’t imposed on churches.
So we can all continue rubbing along, being happily gay, happily homophobic, or grumpy whinging scots..
#38 by Indy on August 4, 2011 - 10:08 pm
Stephen any MSP who lodged a motion saying that nobody should be forced to perform a mixed race marriage would be handing in his or her resignation within about ten minutes.
#39 by Stephen on August 4, 2011 - 11:21 pm
@Indy: I think you may have misunderstood me.
My point was that nobody can be forced to participate in, witness, attend or perform any marriage. Therefore any statement about any particular type of marriage has no real meaning.
I’ve suggested elsewhere that one solution would be to have the legal marriage done by registrars, with the usual checks and in the presence of witnesses, leaving couples to pursue whatever sort of celebration they like.
#40 by James on August 7, 2011 - 9:50 am
Another of those “I agree with Indy” moments.
#41 by Observer on August 4, 2011 - 8:37 pm
Dr William Reynolds – please read the motion again.
It doesn’t make sense because the alleged threat doesn’t exist. Neither Mr Mason nor anyone else is going to be forced to be involved in or to approve of same sex marriage.
All the proposed legislation would do is remove an impediment which would then allow those Churches who do approve of same sex marriage to conduct them. There are no moral dilemas involved, as the Churches have already made their minds up, but an outdated law is preventing them from doing what they wish.
For goodness sake, the Tories are passing this in England, it’s hardly radical stuff. It’s a tidying up exercise.
.
#42 by John Lind on August 4, 2011 - 8:57 pm
Hi William, perhaps I wasn’t very clear. My point was that everyone is jumping to the conclusion that John Mason is a homophobe when his motion technically isn’t about blocking gay marriage. I totally agree, this should have been brought in years ago and it’s just religious organisations being awkward that made only ‘civil unions’ legal a few years back.
#43 by Louise on August 4, 2011 - 9:18 pm
The trouble is, that this is a well-known and much-used tactic by anti-gay marriage campaigners, most notably in America, for the purposes of scaremongering to conservative religious voters so that they are mobilised to campaign against gay marriage. The spectre of religious compulsion is raised when no such thing has been suggested by anyone, and this fictional threat is then used by some conservative Christians to claim that they are the ones being persecuted and not the people whose basic human rights they wish to continue denying.
It’s worth remembering that Scotland like most other western countries has a shameful history of persecuting gay and lesbian people including execution, imprisonment and maltreatment which was once blessed by our churches just as sectarian discrimination used to be a highly-respectable religious position too. Would any MSP put down a motion worrying lest any organisation might be ‘forced’ to ‘approve’ of treating Catholics fairly or giving us the notion that the Pope is Antichrist (as per the Westminster Confession) as a poster-child for the values of free speech in Scotland for unpopular religious beliefs? If they did so it would be quite obvious what values they were trying to baptise under the cover of freedom of speech and religion. It’s no different with this not very subtle attempt at dog-whistle politics.
The over-use of the same tactic elsewhere, I’m afraid, gives the game away, and the beauty of the dog-whistle is that if you call the user on it they then cry ‘persecution!’ and claim this is proof that you’re secretly planning a campaign of compulsion, because why else would you protest?
I spent ages recently arguing with a gay friend that although the SNP had taken money from Soutar they wouldn’t support homophobia. I now have to admit that I am wrong and there is indeed cause for concern. That this motion has drawn support in parliament in the SNP is shocking. The leadership need to call this for what it is and to make clear that dog-whistle attack tactics on minority groups have no place in the party, no matter how they are wrapped up in the parliamentary equivalent of ‘Mom and apple-pie’ in an attempt to disguise their nasty payload.
#44 by Indy on August 4, 2011 - 10:20 pm
There isn’t cause for concern. The ldeadership supports equal marriage, the SNP Government is bringing in legislation on it and I think you will find that more SNP MSPs will sign the amendment than signed the motion. And I suspect that some of the MSPs who signed the motion may not have been totally aware of its implications.
Besides if we leave aside all moral, ethical or other considerations the SNP is not stupid – indeed has even been accused of populism from time to time.
If this issue comes down to a popularity contest between gay people and conservative Christians the gay people will win, By a country mile.
#45 by Observer on August 4, 2011 - 9:29 pm
Ross @ 23.
I am assuming you are the same Ross who has had this letter published in the Scotsman tomorrow.
http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/opinion/Letter-Samesex-marriage-a-matter.6813115.jp
I have to say you have rather let your slip show, as Mr Salmond has previously said that he is minded to support equal marriage rights, & Ms Sturgeon can always be relied on to support progressive measures.
The cheap shot about Brian Soutrer was just cheap, it is also boring. I trust you will eat your words when you are proven to be incorrect.
#46 by Louise on August 4, 2011 - 11:00 pm
Observer, it’s precisely because of this motion and the support for it that mentioning Souter is not a cheap point but is now a very serious one. LGBT people have suffered centuries of religious persecution and have a right to be very nervous of religious anti-gay campaigners getting anywhere near power. Brian Souter was at the forefront of attacking them and their families in Scotland through his ‘Keep the Clause’ campaign. It’s bad enough that we have taken money from him, but the only possible way to mitigate it was for the SNP to be above suspicion of allowing anti-gay causes to be promoted from our platform. Thanks to John Mason et al. that has been lost.
Where attacks on gay people by the religious conservatives are allowed attacks on women and their reproductive rights come not far behind. Such policies are deal-breakers. An independent Scotland is no good to people whose basic rights are threatened by religious conservatives. We need to know and to hear clearly that pursuit of a broad-church in the run-up to an independence referendum won’t involve concessions on these fronts.
#47 by Ross on August 4, 2011 - 11:27 pm
I had a loooong chat regarding this with Gil Paterson when we were driving home from a community event. At that point I knew of this motion but not that he was supporting it.
To give some context, I am a Member of the Scottish Youth Parliament (Clydebank & Milngavie, like Gil) and it is our national campaign, Love Equally that has brought this on.
Gil’s attitude was the usual and effectively nonsensical ‘marriage = man+woman’ stuff and I could see immediately this was a position he was not going to move on without force from about (ie if the SNP actually had some policy on this for a whip to be enforced) but to give him his credit, his attitude was to represent his constituents and he would raise their concerns, points for the debate etc. in the chamber, regardless of personal views.
I’m really dissappointed that he is supporting the motion but he seemed to be of the misguided mindset that we would be forcing churches to marry gay couples. That is the opposite of our goals. We want more freedom in marriage/civil partnerships for all involved, not less for the officiators!
Still, truly crap-tastic motion!
#48 by Indy on August 5, 2011 - 2:32 pm
Accoodong to the SP website Gil Paterson is supporting the amendment not the motion.
There does seem to be some confusion about this as Dennis Robertson was also listed as supporting the motion when he wanted to support the amendment. And Kevin Stewart was down at one point as supporting the motion rather than the amdendment.
#49 by Jeff - Dundee on August 5, 2011 - 12:46 am
copy of Mr Rennie’s amendment.
“That the Parliament notes the current discussion about same-sex marriages and looks forward to the Scottish Government’s forthcoming public consultation concerning equal marriage; aspires for Scotland to be one of the most fair and equal places in the world; supports the extension of legal marriage to lesbian and gay couples; and believes that, while there would be no mandate on religious organisations, those religious denominations who wish to celebrate marriages for lesbian and gay people should be free to do so.â€
#50 by Dr William Reynolds on August 5, 2011 - 7:58 am
I agree with Indy that prevention of religious denominations from carraying out gay marriages cannot be justified.However this is a very dodgy area.I used the term moral dillema,perhaps I should have said moral reasoning.This involves reasoning about what morally,one should do.The problem is that there are all kinds of people out there who come to different conclusions about what is right and wrong..This applies to many situations,gay marriages,gay people adopting children,eithenasia,abortion,the neurobiological treatment of mental illness etc.We cannot ignore that fact,because it will impact on our relationships with other people who inhabit our environment.
It is likely that Johm Masons recognition of the variable impact of moral reasoning motivated his motion,which calls for a pleuristic society where all minorities can live together in peace and mutual tolerance.Yes we can argue that the motion is not necessary,but (personally) I see nothing to be alarmed about at this point.It might even be useful to remind ourselves that we should be tolerant towards another person who holds different views,when dealing with a topic that will evoke a range of emotions.
As i said earlier,the motion is comprised of such clumsy syntax that it is difficult to read.As a consequence the core message ( about tolerance ) is likely to be buried in the text.I had to read the motion several times before I understood the point.I suspect that for that reason,it will be modified heavily.I would certainly hope that Jeff would invite John Mason to contribute to this debate,clarify what he means.This seems fair and in the spirit of tolerance that is advocated by John Mason.
#51 by Indy on August 5, 2011 - 10:33 am
I think you are missing the key point here. Yes, there are all kinds of people out there who come to different conclusions about what is right and wrong but the issue is one of equal rights, not moral approval.
It is surely a basic and fundamental principle that all citizens should have equal rights. Yet in this case they do not. Men and women have the right to marry but same sex couples do not.
The law as it stands comes from an era when being gay was criminalised. Thankfully that is no longer the case, so this is effectively – as Observer suggests – a tidying-up exercise to bring the law on marriage into line with modern day reality.
It’s why there is a broad political consensus to change the law to allow equal access to marriage.
It is really not that big a deal, or it shouldn’t be.
#52 by Duncan on August 5, 2011 - 10:12 am
A couple of years ago – after the issues of same-sex adoption and ordination of gay ministers in the Church of Scotland had drawn some public comment from a range of MPs and MSPs- I made a speech at SNP National Conference pointing out that elected representatives were free to hold whatever private views they liked but that, in public statements and actions, they were expected to reflect SNP policy and to remember that they were, and would be understood to be, representatives of the Party.
It is deeply disappointing that John – a man I know, like and admire – felt it necessary to make this very public statement which, since it is at best vacuous, achieves nothing other than the stushie currently under way, and encourages our political opponents to question our commitment to equality. Those who have been elected as MSPs and who have signalled support for this motion, cannot possibly be naiive enough to hide behind the risible ‘everyone has a right not to be forced to do things they disagree with’ type position. As others have suggested, there is no question of religious denominations being forced to do anything. Therefore, by signing this motion, they are in my view clearly expressing their opposition to same-sex marriages. Fine. Hold that view if you want to, but don’t express it in the name of the SNP.
I am. like others, heartened to see the support for Patrick Harvie’s amendment among SNP MSPs.
#53 by Ross on August 5, 2011 - 10:47 am
Observer. Yes I am. I also stand by my words. Alec Salmond has indeed made ONE statement that he is “minded to support” marriage equality. Hardly a ringing endorsement from a man whose campaigning skills are second to none.
However like you, I look forward to the day that I can eat my words in this regard. I can assure you that I will be the very first to put my hands up and congratulate the First Minister on ignorning the more prejudiced members of his party and doing the right thing.
As I am merely a private citizen and he is the First Minister, it does rather appear that the ball is in his court….
As for your comments about Brian Souter, I have to tell you that as a victim of homophobic violence there is nothing boring about criticising those who encourage that kind of behaviour or those who accept their money.
#54 by Indy on August 5, 2011 - 11:44 am
Surely Scotland can’t legislatively go it alone on equal marriage. It has to be done in tandem with England and Wales because some of the issues are reserved. But it’s going to happen, I don’t think there can be any doubt about that.
#55 by Ross on August 5, 2011 - 11:07 am
That said I have just read the SNP MP’s Pete Wishart’s comments about John Mason’s “nasty little anti gay marriage motion”. Credit where its due. Congratulations to Mr Wishart.
#56 by Richard Lucas on August 5, 2011 - 11:37 am
It’s a good job that there is no decent opposition in Scotland, because this stooshie would be an open goal for them. John Mason appears to be wildly out of touch, and I can make no sense of his motion. Does he anticipate ministers bein frog-marched down the ailse to wed love-struck gays? It’s a nonsense, and an unneccessary one.
Plenty here have said that Mr Mason is not an intolerant man, and I accept that. However, he appears intent on creating sanctuary for the intolerant, and his words are capable of misinterpretation, both wilfully and otherwise.
#57 by Richard Lucas on August 5, 2011 - 11:39 am
I apologise. There is a decent opposition in Scotland. Patrick Harvie has expressed himself well in his amendment.
#58 by Dr William Reynolds on August 5, 2011 - 2:17 pm
sorry Indy,I usually agrre with your comments but I believe that you are missing my point.Okay lets have one more last attempt:
When you and I argue for equal rights we are using moral reasoning to make the judgement that this is correct.I think that just about everyone on this site is in favour of equal rights in the context of being comfortable about Gay marriages.In that sense we are atypical of the population because not everyone believes that this is right.Some individuals use moral reasoning to come to a conclusion that equal rights has nothing to do with gay marriages,which they regard as wrong for a variety of reasons.I don’t agree with them but I do agree that equal rights involves their right to adopt a belief that their moral reasoning has led to believe.The problem with moral reasoning is that it is messy.It is n ot like science where we constantly doubt and challeng research findings,and it is not like philosophy that examines a situation from every possible position.generally when we use moral reasoning we factor in a limited number of variable to come to our conclusion.
my conclusion about John Mason is that he recognises the reality of the world that we live in.he is advocating a position that states that all of us have a right to equal treatment,even though some people may hold views that make us uncomfortable.The limitations that we put on free speach and peoples choices is something that can be argued forever.That is the problem with moral reasoning.It is messy.I think that John’s motion was so badly written that his argument for pleuralistic socirty where all views can live together in peace was buried.Perhaps that is the best that we can hope for.In that sense John Mason is showing a lot of social intelligence.
#59 by Indy on August 5, 2011 - 2:54 pm
Let’s start by putting this in context. The people who support equal marriage not atypical. Support for equal marriage is mainstream, successive surveys and polls show that a clear majority of Scots support it, the same is true down south.
That’s why all the political parties are open to the idea and working on taking it forward. The Govt down south is going to consult on it and the Govt up here is going to consult on it – that would have been the case whoever was elected. If it was hugely controversial and potentially unpopular they probably wouldn’t be doing that, as governments do not generally seek to be controversially unpopular!
There may well be some individuals and churches who disagree – but there are individuals who disagree with all kinds of things that governments and parliaments do. There are many ways in which they can express their disagreement as part of the democratic process – particularly when there is going to be a consultation which is going to be seeking the views of all interested parties. That will obviously include all of the churches.
So John Mason’s motion is not really necessary in that sense and his argument that “that even when there is disagreement with another person’s views, that person has the right to express these views, and considers that no person or organisation should be forced to be involved in or to approve of same-sex marriages†is deliberately provocative. Because there is no intention to prevent anybody expressing their religious views and there is no intention of forcing religious bodies to be involved in or approve of same sex marriage if that is against their creed.
It would be the equivalent of someone putting down a motion saying that in the course of the referendum campaign “even when there is disagreement with another person’s views, that person has the right to express these views, and considers that no person or organisation should be forced to vote for independence against their willâ€.
Do you get it? By calling for free speech to be protected and no-one to be forced to do something they don’t want to do you create a perception that freedom of speech and action are actually under threat WHEN THEY ARE NOT.
That is why people both outside and inside the SNP are hopping mad about this.
#60 by Richard on August 6, 2011 - 6:36 am
Some individuals use moral reasoning to come to a conclusion that equal rights has nothing to do with gay marriages,which they regard as wrong for a variety of reasons.
I would argue that very few people would use moral reasoning to come to this conclusion. In my experience, people who hold such views have imported them wholesale from some form of religious institution, rather than actually thinking them out for themselves.
#61 by Indy on August 6, 2011 - 8:45 am
Yes absolutely. Whatever views John holds on this issue are based on the teachings of his church.
#62 by Dr William Reynolds on August 5, 2011 - 3:57 pm
People inside and outside the SN P may be hoping mad (Indy) about John Mason’s motion.Not all I suppose .John Mason’s motion proposes that all views ( which are often minority) can live together in peace and mutual tolerance.I am one SNP member who can agree with that.I hope that many fellow SNP members would agree with that?
Yes of course there is a possibility that political opponents will use John Mason’s motion to attack the SNP ‘Willie Rennie has already done so.His spin on this is a fairly weak attempt to attack the SNP government.Of course we know that homophobic views span the political spectrum and I can understand the anger of SNP members about one of their MSP’s expressing a view on the topic of gay marriages,It is an emotive issue that is beyond politics,and likely to be misunderstood.I understand that.While it might be inadvisab le of John Mason at this stage to intervene,his concern for the rights of ev eryone (while not popular) is correct (in my view).
Okay Indy,I dont have any more time to debate this topic.I just wish that people would recognise that John Mason (irrespective of whether they agree with him) is well in tentioned and does not discriminate again st anyone,
#63 by Observer on August 5, 2011 - 8:43 pm
”As for your comments about Brian Souter, I have to tell you that as a victim of homophobic violence there is nothing boring about criticising those who encourage that kind of behaviour or those who accept their money.”
I had a child at school at the time of the Brian Souter referendum & along with lot of other people opposed both it & he vigorously.
However, he also supports independence. Do you refuse backing from anyone whose views you don’t agree with in total?
But it is this comment that I take issue with:
”it now suddenly becomes clear why Brian Souter was all too willing to provide the SNP with such a large donation in the run-up to the last election.”
That is complete rubbish Ross, this is Mr Mason’s motion, not the SNP’s. There is no evidence whatsoever that Mr Souter’s homophobic views have influenced SNP policy in any way at all. If they had then I would be the first to start shouting. That is what I find boring, as it is an accusation much thrown, un-supported by any evidence.
#64 by Observer on August 5, 2011 - 8:49 pm
”Where attacks on gay people by the religious conservatives are allowed attacks on women and their reproductive rights come not far behind”
Can you remember any attacks by religious conservatives which have had any success recently? I can’t. We got the embryo bill through, abortion is legal, we won on the gay adoption issue, & this will pass too.
John Mason’s silly motion shouldn’t be made too much of. It should certainly not be a reason to view the SNP with suspicion.
I will wait until the party/government does something wrong before raising concern, not an individual member.
#65 by DougtheDug on August 5, 2011 - 9:02 pm
I’m not religious and I’ve got no objection to same sex marriage but it’s interesting with the planned legislation for Scotland that a clash between Christian belief and same sex civil marriage has already occurred in England.
“…and considers that no person or organisation should be forced to be involved in or to approve of same-sex marriages.”
That last part of John Mason’s motion was probably based on this case which doesn’t involve religious marriage but civil marriage.
http://www.personneltoday.com/articles/2009/12/15/53434/christian-registrar-lillian-ladele-loses-religious-discrimination.html
#66 by Louise on August 6, 2011 - 1:58 am
I don’t know if you know this, but Lilian Ladele chose a job which was by its very nature a non-religious one: from the Citizens Advice Bureau guide on Register Office weddings – “It is not possible to use religious words in the civil ceremony. However, the ceremony may include readings, songs or music that contain reference to a god as long as they are in an ‘essentially non-religious context’.” She took up a job designed to provide non-religious services and then suddenly made religion into an issue despite this.
So she’s a really bad example, as what she did would in fact be like someone telling an anti-gay church that they now have to accommodate the one minister in their denomination who wants to provide gay weddings and that they cannot use any sanction against him/her. As pointed out already, nobody has any plans at all to do that and this has never been done.
#67 by Indy on August 6, 2011 - 8:53 am
Also, has one single person working as a registrar in Scotland raised any concerns about this? I don’t think so. The public service ethos is entirely different to the ethos which pertains within religous organisations. By definition the public includes people from a wide variety of backgrounds with a wide variety of beliefs and views – people working in public service generally see it as their role to accommodate everyone, not to exclude anyone.
#68 by douglas clark on August 6, 2011 - 5:59 am
I consider myself a ‘good’ Scottish Nationalist.
This sort of stupidity by John Mason MSP makes me wonder whether the SNP is a case of lions led by bigots.
There is hardly a Christian left standing who doesn’t get a pay packet. Could we please start treating them without any ‘respect’ whatsoever?
They should get what they deserve. Much as ‘Libertarians’ and ‘Ayn Rand fans’ and other idiots do.
#69 by Indy on August 6, 2011 - 11:39 am
With respect that is a stupid comment. Both Alex Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon are on record as supporting equal marriage. The SNP has made a commitment to consult on changing the law. More SNP MSPs have signed the amendment to the motion than signed the motion. And John Mason was not chosen as the candidate for Shettleston by the party leadership, he was chosen as the candidate by the local SNP members.
I don’t necessarily think they made a mistake doing that – as I have said John’s record on other- non-“moral” -issues has been exemplary and he is an outstanding constituency MSP.
The issue here may getting the right balance between the loyalty owed by elected members to their personal or religious beliefs and the loyalty owed to their constituents and to their party. I suggest that this is not solely an issue for the SNP.
#70 by Sean on August 6, 2011 - 11:33 am
Moral reasoning, moral shmeasoning.
If it ain’t a dog whistle, why is he blowing so hard?
#71 by James on August 7, 2011 - 1:15 pm
Quite right. +1 for double entendre too.
#72 by Jeff - Dundee on August 6, 2011 - 12:46 pm
Christian registrar who refused to conduct gay weddings wins case
A Christian registrar who refused to carry out gay weddings because they were “sinful” has won a landmark discrimination battle and hailed her triumph as a victory for religious liberty.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2280484/Christian-registrar-who-refused-to-conduct-gay-weddings-wins-case.html
Christian registrar loses appeal over ‘gay marriage’
The victory was shortlived – 17 months, to be precise.
Christian registrar Lillian Ladele has lost her appeal against a ruling that she had not been discriminated against by being disciplined after she refused to conduct same-sex civil partnerships in north London.
She became a registrar in 2002, when state-authorised unions were an exclusively heterosexual affair. When the law changed, she felt she could not carry out such ceremonies ‘as a matter of religious conscience’.
http://archbishop-cranmer.blogspot.com/2009/12/christian-registrar-loses-appeal-over.html
#73 by Observer on August 6, 2011 - 2:57 pm
Ms Ladele was unable to carry out her job because of her belief system. This was an issue of employment law, whether Ms Ladele’s beliefs over-rode her duty as a public servant to fulfil the function she was paid to perform.
I note that crammer as usual goes on about muslims, but any muslim making the same objection would also be disciplined & eventually dismissed. Having worked in the public sector myself, I am quite aware that you drop your own belief system at the door, it is your job to implement public policy, not your own.
It is an interesting case, but not relevant to Mr Mason’s motion, which does not seek to allow public servants to discriminate on the basis of religion.
#74 by Observer on August 6, 2011 - 3:06 pm
The public sector can clearly deal with issues of conscience, as people whose religious views do not accommodate contraception or abortion can opt out of working in these sectors. However, if statute says that discrimination against a person because of their sexual orientation is unlawful, then no belief system can justify failing to adhere to that.
There have been an number of cases where Christians have claimed that they are being discriminated against because they are not allowed to discriminate. However they are not, they are just being treated the same as everybody else.
#75 by Louise on August 6, 2011 - 7:54 pm
People who go into providing non-religious ceremonies designed to bypass the Christian consciences of the churches and then complain that a change doesn’t meet with their ‘Christian conscience’ are to put it mildly, a wee bit lacking in the old ‘moral reasoning’ department.
#76 by Ross on August 6, 2011 - 10:40 pm
“There is hardly a Christian left standing who doesn’t get a pay packet. Could we please start treating them without any ‘respect’ whatsoever?”
Douglas Clark, that is a pretty sweeping and ignorant statement to make. There are plenty of Christians both within the SNP and across Scotland, including myself who do not support these views and are in fact fully in favour of marriage equality, i’m campaigning for it.
Christians are not one group and we do not all believe the same thing to the letter. Thats akin to saying that no muslim should hold a position of power because Abu Hamza hates all non-muslims.
To group every Christian together like that would put me in the same ‘group’ as the likes of the Westboro Baptist Church and I can assure you that is most definelty wrong.
#77 by Andrea on August 7, 2011 - 11:25 am
I note that some names disappeared from Mason’s motion. Now it’s supported by just Dave Thompson, Bill Walker, Richard Lyle
More MSPs added their name to Harvie’s amendment: Jamie Hepburn, Linda Fabiani, James Dornan, Sandra White, Kevin Stewart, Maureen Watt, Dennis Robertson, Joe FitzPatrick, Gil Paterson, George Adam, Alison Johnstone, Aileen McLeod, Joan McAlpine, John Finnie, Drew Smith, John Park, Willie Rennie, Mark McDonald
Gil Paterson and Dennis Robertson directly switched from Mason to Harvie
#78 by James on August 7, 2011 - 11:32 am
Kevin Stewart was apparently misallocated to Mason’s motion instead of Harvie’s amendment – error either in his office or at the Chamber Desk. Gil, from the comments above, probably originally signed what he believed in. Dennis I don’t know about.
#79 by Ed on August 7, 2011 - 12:23 pm
In the meantime Mental Health patients are suffering because of Scottish Government policy.
http://f2cscotland.blogspot.com/2011/08/smoking-bans-threaten-mental-health.html
#80 by Barbarian on August 7, 2011 - 5:06 pm
Well, George Laird of the Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow Uni supports Mason.
It seems that not all SNP supporters can accept that Mason is a bigoted idiot who is bringing religion into this.
He was, I believe, supported by a christian political party who did not field a candidate and urged their supporters to vote for Mason.
I smell the hand of a certain tycoon behind this.
#81 by Dr William Reynolds on August 7, 2011 - 5:58 pm
Jeff reassured me in an earlier reply to my initial blog that
he accepted that Johm Mason is not homophobic (which he isnt) and that he would trash any suggestions that fell short in that respect/I am disapoin ted that he has not delivered that promise and has allowed a decent man who does not discriminate against anyone to be accussed of being a bigot.In reality the only thin g that John is guilty of is being unrealistic.While iI admire his suggestion that we should live in a society that tolerates all views,it is not possible.If we accept that people have legitimate religious views that want them to opt out of something,that will discriminate against gay people Thus recognising on e section of the populations rights is likely to take rights away from another group..Okay,but being un realistic does not make John Mason a bad person.
This issue is a hot potatoe and even though we all appear to agree that gay people should have equal rights to heterosexual people,there is a lot of misunderstanding of what people are actually saying.For example,Indy,who I agree with on most issues,misunderstood what I meant when I said that the sample of people on this site were atypical.I meant that our homogenous views did not represent all views in society.In other words,the sample of people on this site does not represent all of the varaying opinions in the world that we live in.Atypical has nothing to do with the numbers of people who support a particular viewpoint.If people who are in agreement misunderstand each other,you can imagine how confused the debate would become if our sample included all of the various opinions in Scottish society.
I think that it is rather sad how John Mason (a well intentioned man ) has been demon ised on this topic.I say this as someone who has been against the descrimination of gay people since I first became aware of homophobic views.I really think that Newsnet should apologise to John Mason .
#82 by Jeff on August 7, 2011 - 6:39 pm
You have a fair angle to level the criticism there William as I did suggest I’d trash such comments but those that have been made have done so intelligently, intellectually robustly in the context and with a name attached to it so I thought it was fair to authorise them.
As for John Mason being demonised here, I don’t agree. He is an MSP, not a little kid in a classroom and if he didn’t know what he was doing with that motion then he should have done. John can either stand up and defend it by explaining a bit more of his points (and he’s welcome, within reason, to guest here if he chooses to do so) or he can stay quiet and let everyone’s assumptions and drawn conclusions remain. So far he has opted to do the latter, either through choice or instruction from on high within the SNP, but he has to live with consequences of his hit and run actions.
#83 by Gregor on August 8, 2011 - 7:57 am
Jeff is right – there is no petty name-calling in this thread, just sensible, adult opinions expressed, such as those from Una.
The motion states that religious groups should not be forced into anything – but no one I know wants that. This debate is about EXTENDING people’s rights, not removing them. There are religions who wish to officiate such ceremonies – who is the state to prevent them? By framing the debate in these terms, by making it look as though the state is out to get the religious groups in society, he is intentionally moving the goalposts, and lowering the value and tone of the debate.
I want a debate. I want to hear what the people of Scotland want. I want to find a consensual approach that will keep most folk happy. By jumping off the handle and scaremongering through rubbish like this, he is adding nothing to the debate, and simply causing a distraction from the real issues. What do we want? The French PACS system? Removing the religious and legal parts (thus giving religions much more scope to decide for themselves)? The three current systems (Civil Partnerships, Civil Marriages, Religious Marriages) open to all? Scrap that and one system? How does the Scottish Government implement these within the confines of the Scotland Act?
THESE are the questions that need answered. By putting up a straw bogeyman, Mr Mason is not helping either side of the debate – merely entrenching people on both sides into their bigotted views. And for that reason, I will name him as a bigot.
#84 by Indy on August 8, 2011 - 8:17 am
On Friday the Scotsman published a letter from a man called David Henderson of something called the Solas Centre supporting John’s position, in which he compared gay relationships to pedophile relationships and to incest. If that is not homophobic I really don’t know what is. Someone then posted that letter to John’s facebook page with a supportive comment.
This is the sickness that I am afraid John has unintentionally associated himself with to by his actions. It is what everybody was worried about – that this debate is going to descend into the gutter. Because, holy orders or not, comparing gay people to pedophiles is gutter politics of the worst sort.
#85 by M W Steel on August 7, 2011 - 7:17 pm
This may not be the best way to go about starting a debate on marriage equality but it is one that is long overdue in the SNP – for too long they have shied away from the issue for fear of disagreement and division. To quote a certain former MSP – bring it on.
http://wotsnews.tumblr.com/post/8606970475/pinkelephants
#86 by Dr William Reynolds on August 7, 2011 - 7:32 pm
Okay Jeff .However I would argue that some views expressed have logical flaws and are not robust,When we get into the area of moral reasoning and ethics it is not possible to agree on what is right or wrong.
Johm Mason is an MSP who is dedicated to working for all of his constituenrs.He does not deserve to be selected by you as a focus for ridicule.I do agree that his motion is badaly worderd but this does not mean that he deserves to be attacked in the way that he has.Since you have opened up this can of worms,I do think thar you have a responsibility to offer some support to Johm Mason,as you promosed me originally.
#87 by douglas clark on August 7, 2011 - 10:34 pm
Ross @ 76,
It seems to me that you ought to have issues with Mr Mason and not me. You can also have issues with Abu Hamza too. That would be OK.
My point is that only the paid bigotry appear on Scottish media with their disgustingly old fashioned ideas. Y’know, the folk that are paid by old fashioned Victorian money pits?
In other words it is ‘paid’ Christians that stand up for this sort of stupidity.
Why then do you castigate me and not them?
You appear to be a fairly modern person although you too rope your religion into your politics.
I watched Muslims go west on that idea after 9/11 and I have found that new you, the idea that suddenly your religion dominates your logic to be a rather sad outcome of almost all religious thought.
Just saying…..
#88 by douglas clark on August 7, 2011 - 10:56 pm
Jeff @ 82,
I hate it when I completely agree with you.
Mason should post here or be forever known as a bigot.
#89 by lynn anderson on August 8, 2011 - 12:31 am
Guess I will be out on a limb here but I support john mason motion.
I watched a debate on question time about the foster caters who were no longer able to foster because of their views on homosexuality.
And one of the panelists who himself was gay said he disagreed with the high court ruling because it was introducing thought crime. As a historian he was worried about a society which would do this.
We cannot coerce, or force our ideas upon anyone else. Not least because it simply does not work.
For this reason where churches are wiling to perform same sex marriages they should indeed be able to. They should be free to act upon their own conscience. However where a church does not want to do so it should not ever be forced to. What would ever be achieved by this anyway?
If it is true that there is no intention or danger of a church ever being put into the situation of being forced to act against their moral conscience, then why object to the protection being written into law.
Sounds like a fair compromise to me.
#90 by Gregor on August 8, 2011 - 10:59 am
“For this reason where churches are wiling to perform same sex marriages they should indeed be able to. They should be free to act upon their own conscience. However where a church does not want to do so it should not ever be forced to. What would ever be achieved by this anyway?”
This is the reason we should NOT support Mr Mason’s motion. No one wants to see a situation where churches are forced into things they do not wish to do. We want equality, not to impose things on others. If you don’t want a gay marriage – don’t get one!
The motion has created this bogeyman that simply doesn’t exist, and by supporting it, you’re simply indoctrinating that view further.
#91 by Indy on August 8, 2011 - 1:05 pm
Nobody wants to coerce or force ideas on people.
I think a good way to understand this is to look at another legal issue related to marriage – divorce.
The law gives everyone the right to get divorced, right? However churches have varying views of it. Some churches are quite liberal about divorce and are quite happy to re-marry divorced people while other churches are against divorce and refuse to re-marry divorced members of their congregation.
Those decisions are entirely for the churches themselves to take. No church has ever been sued for refusing to re-marry a divorced person has it?
It is exactly the same with same sex marriage. Giving same sex couples the legal right to marry does NOT mean that right is enforceable in a religious context. Churches have, and will retain, the right to marry people or refuse to marry people according to their particular doctrines. That right is not – and never could be – part of the debate around same sex marriage because everyone who supports same sex marriage fully accepts that religious bodies have a right to opt out.
Yet by framing his motion in the way that he has John has created the perception that churches could be forced to perform same sex marriages against their will.
It’s a fundamentally dishonest tactic and that is why people are so angry about it.
#92 by Observer on August 8, 2011 - 9:43 am
I am not particularly happy with the word bigot being applied to Mr Mason. That is a word that I am quite happy to apply to Brian Souter as he took active steps to discriminate against homosexuals, but I don’t think Mr Mason fits into the same category.
I think he is starting off from a position of fundamental misunderstanding. He appears to believe that if same sex marriage is allowed for those churches who want to perform them, then legal action could be taken against those churches who don’t want to perform them. That is not correct, because enabling same sex marriages to be performed does not give anyone the civil right to demand that they are performed by churches who do not accept the validity of same sex marriage.
Unfortunately for Mr Mason this is putting him into the same camp as some extremely nasty homophobic bigots, who crawl out from under their rocks whenever the opportunity to attack homosexuals is offered. It is extremely sad that such opinions still exist.
Hopefully Mr Mason will take his blinkers off & understand that the reason gay people insist on equality is because there are people who believe they don’t deserve it. These people need to be telt.
#93 by Gregor on August 8, 2011 - 10:57 am
Perhaps it is a fundamental misunderstanding, the next question however then must be – is it a deliberate misunderstanding as an attempt to skew the debate? He is trying to suggest this will restrict freedom of religion, when in reality, it will only seek to remove the state’s barriers to the religions who wish to bless these types of relationship.
#94 by Chris on August 8, 2011 - 1:10 pm
In the pre-Cameron Tory Party you’d often come across seemingly decent people who would proclaim “I don’t have a racist bone in my body” and would proclaim that they opposed all racism. It just seemed that all the racism they opposed was in theory. Any actual racism in practice they wouldn’t count as racism (e.g. institutional racism)
Similarly I don’t know enough about John Mason to know whether he is homophobic, or merely wishes to speak up for the rights of his friends to be homophobic. But by chosing the rights of homophobes over the much more threatened rights of homosexuals – how many people have been beaten up for being a homophobe, huh? – he leaves himself in an invidious position.
I can understand Better Nation not wanting a witchhunt. But I think your sort-of-SNP-sympathy is again apparent. I don’t think you would protect a Labour or Tory politician whose behavious skirted so closely to homophobia.
#95 by Jeff on August 8, 2011 - 4:57 pm
Well, I’d look a bit silly if I tried to deny I had a very big soft spot for the SNP so you may well be right there Chris, maybe I am giving John an easy ride (incidentally, Dr William Reynolds would strenuously disagree on that one!). All I would say is that I think I’ve gone in as harsh on Mr Mason on this (i.e. not very) as I did on Bill Aitken when he made his unfortunate comments regarding women being attacked in Glasgow.
As for me personally giving appropriate opprobrium to individuals skirting close to homophobia, I’m probably not the best candidate to do so in light of an intolerance-breeding religious past and, not entirely unrelated, posts gone by….! ( see here and here) (not necessarily my views now I hasten to add!)
I would also be keen to give John Mason the benefit of the doubt as I really don’t think it’s at all clear what it is he is even trying to say!
#96 by lynn anderson on August 8, 2011 - 8:37 pm
Hi folks me again,
Perhaps many people are angry about john masons proposal but many others are not and see it as a good compromise. I could understand peolpe being so upset if he was flat out opposing gay marriage. But he is accepting peoples right to this but protecting churches who may have fears around what may be expected of them.
I cannot speak for everyone on one side of the debate. Neither can anyone speak for everyone on their side of the debate either, and therefore guarantee that individual cases will not arise to test the law where none exists. This then allows laws to be created by judges rather than the voice of the people. If as you say it is not about forcing religious bodies to perform same sex marriage why are you concerned that it be written into the law?
Perhaps this underlines the fact that some people do not agree with this lifestyle. I can imagine that would make gay people angry, it would me. Who are they to judge etc etc. But that feeling exists and legislation won’t change it and shouldn’t try in my opinion. There should be no law against a man’s belief.
There is a genuine fear that churches could be put into very difficult situations. You say that fear is unfounded. Yet it exists and john mason did not create that he is reflecting that and seems to be proposing an excellent compromise as far as I can see.
Why does this make him a bigot or homophobic? As far as I can see it is a live and let live attitude. Which is where I feel I stand on the subject.
#97 by Indy on August 9, 2011 - 7:41 am
Lynn I am sorry but you still don’t get this.
You say John’s motion is a good compromise but could you explain to us in what sense it is a compromise.
A compromise between what? What two positions do you believe need to be reconciled?
#98 by Lynne Anderson on August 8, 2011 - 9:16 pm
This is the reason we should NOT support Mr Mason’s motion. No one wants to see a situation where churches are forced into things they do not wish to do. We want equality, not to impose things on others. If you don’t want a gay marriage – don’t get one!
The motion has created this bogeyman that simply doesn’t exist, and by supporting it, you’re simply indoctrinating that view further.
Hi gregor I dont understand what you are saying here. Not trying to be obtuse just genuiely not sure what you mean. (Not sure my comments have all been entirely clear either probably as I have written them on a phone and keep accidently deleting stuff:)
#99 by Indy on August 9, 2011 - 8:28 am
I think what he means is that no-one wants to change the law which exempts religious bodies from laws on discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation.
That is a point that has been repeatedly made.
As you must be aware churches could not be taken to court for refusing to marry a same sex coople, any more than they could be taken to court for refusing to marry a divorced person or refusing to ordain woman priests.
The laws which would prohibit discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation or on grounds of gender in secular organisations do not apply to religious bodies.
That is why Gregor suggests that by wording the motion in the way that he has John is creating a bogeyman which does not exist.
#100 by Lynne Anderson on August 8, 2011 - 11:45 pm
That right is not – and never could be – part of the debate around same sex marriage because everyone who supports same sex marriage fully accepts that religious bodies have a right to opt out.
Indy as I read more about this issue I found this on the bbc website that was inviting views on equal marriage.
Richard Voyce, London, England
My partner, Graham, and I had a civil ceremony in 2007. I am not religious and would not have wanted a ceremony in a church, but it could have been an option for my partner had this announcement been made sooner.
Richard and Graham enjoying their big day However, what I find outrageous is that, yet again religious institutions are being given an “opt out” clause.
Imagine if the Catholic Church said they weren’t going to allow black people to marry. Imagine the outcry there would be.
If it is right to do something, then it is right to do something, full stop. No opt outs.
As a gay man I’m not asking for any more rights than a straight person, but I fail to see why I should be expected to settle for less.
The obvious way out of this is to license the premises. If a religious building wants to be a venue for marriage, whether Church of England, Catholic, Muslim, Jewish etc, it should seek that permission.
Failure to allow same sex unions should then mean it loses its license and the state would not recognise any marriages carried out in it again.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12497811
This worry that religious organisations could be forced to perform gay marriages did not originate from John Mason’s motion. And it is not imagined.
#101 by Indy on August 9, 2011 - 8:40 am
Yes it is imagined. Try to understand this. Legislating for equal marriage would have no impact on the status of religious bodies in terms of equalities legislation.
The only circumstances in which religious institutions could lose their exemption from having to comply with laws on discrimination is if the Equality Act was extensively re-written to remove that exemption.
There may well be individuals who want to do that but no political party does and no organisation which supports equal marriage does.
So it is a false fear. Think about it. Even if the Scottish Government was to write in a cast iron guarantee that churches were exempt from laws on equal marriage the churches who object could still come back and say ah but that might change in the future. You say now that you don’t want to coerce churches into taking part in same sex marriages but who is to say that in future you won’t change your mind? If people are going to take that approach there is literally nothing that can be done to reassure them.
#102 by lynn anderson on August 9, 2011 - 9:27 am
If it is not a big deal why do you object to it bring written into the law?
If I were to change my mind I would simply go to a church that did allow for gay marriage and not try to force others to act against their conscience. You say this is not your or any other organisations goal, well let’s just keep that clear from the start and everyone is happy.
This is all that the motion is proposing.
Laws can be built on test cases too. Let the people decide not judges.
John mason is doing his job as an mp and putting forward the views of a group of people and doing so in a fair way. which he has not only the right but the responsibility to do. Don’t shoot the messenger.
#103 by Louise on August 9, 2011 - 2:43 pm
At the moment churches which believe in gay marriage are forced against their consciences as they may not legally marry people.
The fact that an attempt to stop compulsion in religion is now being falsely framed as a case of ‘religion in danger’ has been achieved by this motion. It’s done its dirty work.
#104 by Bob on August 12, 2011 - 2:26 pm
I have read through this debate with interest. it seems to me that to hold Christian beliefs and to want to live your life according to them is NOT allowed. If you disagree with the homosexual way of life you are Homophobic. If you work in the Puiblic sector you are not allowed to live according to your beliefs, in fact if you hold any Christian belief you are “out of date” “Medievil” “Discriminatory”and other such tags, in other words we are free to believe anything want as long as it conforms. Where is the freedom or equality in that??
As to homosexuals being allowed to hold a civil partnership in a church. Notice I use the proper terminology “Civil Partnership” because the law that was enacted to allow this quite clearly says that it is NOT marriage.
If this becomes law, then we WILL see churches being taken to court for not allowing that to happen on their premises. Churches WILL be targeted by homosexual pressure groups, as has happened in the past. They will not use any new law enacted by the Scottish Government, but a law that talks about equality in goods and services.
So it is absolutely essential that safeguards are built into any new law, to stop this from happening. If homosexuals are ture to the idea of “Equality” then what is the problem with that??
#105 by Jeff on August 12, 2011 - 5:40 pm
Bob, thanks for the comment, and I can sympathise with your views, if not agree with them.
I would hope that all people would respect a person’s beliefs and religion but there is no reason why those beliefs should be reflected in law unless there is a democratic desire for that to be the case, separation of church and state and all that.
If churches are targetted by homosexual groups then that would be unfortunate. I personally do not think that that will happen and I don’t think it’s fair to assume it is the case before the event.
Also, in terms of John Mason’s apparent proposal, there should be no need for a new law to protect churches from something that existing law already protects them from.
#106 by lynn anderson on August 12, 2011 - 5:06 pm
Bravo bob, as you can see from my comments, I couldn’t have said it better:)
Pingback: Gabh Ris – Gay Marriage « A Highlander in Holyrood